# United States v. State of Minnesota (26-2905) *Appeal docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as No. 26-2905, with the United States as appellant.* *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 26-2905, is an appeal docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on September 21, 2026. The [[United States Department of Justice|United States of America]] is the appellant. The State of [[Minnesota]], Keith M. Ellison, Hennepin County, Dawanna S. Witt, the [[City of Minneapolis]] and the [[City of St. Paul]] appear as appellees.[^1] The docket lists the nature of suit as code 1950, *Constitutionality of State Statutes*. The originating-court documents it records are an opinion and order and a judgment, both dated July 20, 2026.[^1] As of its last entry in the record, dated October 2, 2026, the appellate docket shows no termination date. Under its briefing schedule, the United States' opening brief is due November 10, 2026.[^1] The docket entries in the record do not name the district court or district-court docket number from which the appeal is taken.[^1] The record therefore does not establish that this appeal arises from No. 0:26-cv-00273, the Title VII action the United States filed against the State on January 14, 2026.[^2] The case record for that action describes a three-judge district court with direct appeal to the Supreme Court, not an appeal to the Eighth Circuit.[^3] ## Parties The United States of America is the appellant. Daniel Tenny and Samuel B. Goldstein entered appearances for it on September 30, 2026.[^1] Joseph Richie appeared for appellees Keith M. Ellison and the State of Minnesota on September 22, 2026. Colin Laffey appeared for appellee City of St. Paul the same day.[^1] On September 23, 2026, Sarah McLaren appeared for appellees Hennepin County and Dawanna S. Witt. Sara J. Lathrop and Heather Robertson appeared for appellee City of Minneapolis that day.[^1] The docket entries in the record do not state the capacity in which Keith M. Ellison or Dawanna S. Witt is named.[^1] ## Procedural history - **July 20, 2026.** An opinion and order and a judgment are entered in the originating court, as recorded in the appellate docket.[^1] - **September 21, 2026.** The Eighth Circuit dockets the civil case. The originating-court documents are filed in the appeal: the opinion and order, the judgment, the notice of appeal and the district-court docket entries. A briefing schedule is set the same day.[^1] The record does not give the date on which the notice of appeal was filed in the originating court. - **September 22–23, 2026.** Counsel appear for the State of Minnesota, Keith M. Ellison, Hennepin County, Dawanna S. Witt, the City of Minneapolis and the City of St. Paul.[^1] - **September 30, 2026.** Counsel appear for the United States as appellant.[^1] - **October 2, 2026.** The United States files its method of appendix preparation and elects a separate appendix.[^1] ## Status The briefing schedule sets these deadlines:[^1] - the transcript, on or before November 2, 2026; - the appendix, November 10, 2026; - the appellant's brief, November 10, 2026; - the appellee brief, 30 days after the court issues the notice of docket activity filing the appellant's brief. The record does not include a brief, motion or public statement by any appellee in the appeal.[^1] ## Same-caption matters in the record The record carries two other federal actions by the United States against Minnesota under similar captions. Neither is shown by the record to be the matter on appeal in No. 26-2905. They are described here so the dockets are not confused. ### No. 0:26-cv-00273 (affirmative-action hiring) [[United States v. State of Minnesota (affirmative-action hiring)|*United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273]] was filed in the District of Minnesota on January 14, 2026.[^2][^4] It is a pattern-or-practice complaint under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].[^2][^5] It is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6.[^6] The instrument it challenges is [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]], *Agency Affirmative Action Programs*. By its terms, that statute governs executive-branch agencies of Minnesota state government, and the Commissioner of Management and Budget audits their compliance.[^7] The complaint cites § 43A.191 eight times. Among those citations is subdivision 3(c), which requires an agency to explain its reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^2] The Minnesota Department of Human Services' hiring and [[Pre-Hire Justification policy]] ([[DHS Policy 4100.250]]) is filed as an exhibit.[^2][^5] The project's record identifies it as Exhibit B and describes it as carrying the "non-underrepresented candidate" language.[^2] The complaint alleges that Minnesota "identifies no prior or present discrimination to justify its race- and sex-conscious employment policies."[^2] These are allegations; a complaint states allegations, not adjudicated facts. The Department of Justice announced the suit the same day in release No. 26-21. The release is titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*.[^8] It states that Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^8] The U.S. government has used "regime" for governments it opposes. The [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998, for example, states a policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein."[^9] The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages ([[How Minnesota Got Here]], note 40) finds Minnesota the only U.S. state so described.[^9] That is the catalogue's finding, not an independently established fact. The case was assigned to a three-judge district court: Circuit Judge [[Raymond W. Gruender]], Chief Judge [[Patrick J. Schiltz]] of the District of Minnesota, and Judge [[D. Price Marshall Jr.]] of the Eastern District of Arkansas.[^3][^10] Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins was assigned after Judge Foster's recusal. The State's response was due February 27, 2026.[^10] The case record states that the matter carries a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.[^3] The project's record as of June 18, 2026, describes the case as ongoing.[^10] The same record describes the complaint as a Bostock-textualist pleading. It also states that the suit was brought after [[Executive Order 11246]] was revoked by Executive Order 14173 on January 21, 2025.[^2] Earlier, in [[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]], 605 U.S. 303 (2025), the Supreme Court held that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^11] ### No. 0:26-cv-02078 (Title IX) A [[Title IX]] action, No. 0:26-cv-02078, was filed in the District of Minnesota on March 30, 2026.[^12][^13] The project's sources caption it two ways. Its dossier citations give *United States v. State of Minnesota*, and its densified record gives *United States v. Minnesota Dept. of Education*.[^12] The defendants are the [[Minnesota Department of Education]] and the [[Minnesota State High School League]], and the case is before Judge [[Eric C. Tostrud]].[^12] The Department of Justice announced the suit in release No. 26-299.[^13] Separately, the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services issued Minnesota Title IX findings through their Offices for Civil Rights. Those findings are an agency determination under the preponderance standard; the complaint states allegations.[^14] ## See also - [[United States v. State of Minnesota (affirmative-action hiring)]] - [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] - [[Pre-Hire Justification policy]] - [[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]] ## Notes [^1]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 26-2905, docket (CourtListener/RECAP) (Sept. 21 – Oct. 2, 2026) — docketing date, nature of suit, originating opinion and order and judgment dated 7/20/26, briefing schedule, appearances of counsel, appendix method, no termination entry. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74832611/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^2]: United States, *Complaint*, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn. filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII pattern-or-practice complaint; eight citations to § 43A.191 including subd. 3(c); DHS policy exhibit; ¶ 54 allegation. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^3]: Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, case 47712 — docket, three-judge panel of Gruender, Schiltz and Marshall; direct appeal to the Supreme Court. https://clearinghouse.net/case/47712/ [^4]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota* (No. 0:26-cv-00273, D. Minn., Jan. 14, 2026) — filing date and docket. https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/1757896/download [^5]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *United States v. State of Minnesota* case page — pattern-or-practice complaint challenging § 43A.191; DHS Policy 4100.250 filed as exhibit; three-judge court requested. https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/united-states-v-state-minnesota [^6]: Legal Information Institute, *42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6* — Title VII pattern-or-practice authority of the Attorney General. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-6 [^7]: Minnesota Revisor of Statutes, *Minn. Stat. § 43A.191, Agency Affirmative Action Programs* — statute text; scope over executive-branch agencies; compliance audited by the Commissioner of Management and Budget. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/43A.191 [^8]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, release No. 26-21, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime* (Jan. 14, 2026) — title of the release; Attorney General's certification of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^9]: U.S. Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 — statutory use of "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein"; cited by the project's catalogue (How Minnesota Got Here, note 40) of U.S.-government "regime" usages. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf [^10]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273, docket (CourtListener 72142517) — three-judge assignment, Magistrate Judge Elkins after Judge Foster's recusal, State's response due Feb. 27, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72142517/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^11]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025), slip opinion — holding on Title VII disparate treatment; rejection of the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf [^12]: United States, *Complaint*, No. 0:26-cv-02078 (D. Minn. filed Mar. 30, 2026) — Title IX complaint; defendants. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1433251/dl [^13]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, release No. 26-299, *Justice Department Sues Minnesota to Protect Girls' Sports and Intimate Spaces* (Mar. 30, 2026) — announcement of the Title IX suit. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-minnesota-protect-girls-sports-and-intimate-spaces [^14]: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Offices for Civil Rights, *Minnesota Title IX findings* — agency finding on the preponderance standard. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/ed-hhs-minnesota-title-ix-findings-112441.pdf